tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post8969250775420220482..comments2017-08-14T11:52:20.463-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Rev. William Gordon Goes to PressJ. L. Bellnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-32984178678798917272010-08-13T12:03:19.587-05:002010-08-13T12:03:19.587-05:00You seem unable to distinguish between my reportin...You seem unable to distinguish between my reporting on others’ thinking (“most modern historians consult Gordon’s book for sporadic passages…,” “People saw its style as stodgy”) and what I myself wrote. That should be an elementary skill for a historian or literary scholar. <br /><br />The fact that Gordon’s book contains long passages from the <i>Annual Register</i> and Ramsay’s history is beyond dispute. So are the facts that such borrowing was common in the eighteenth century, and that accusations of plagiarism hurt Gordon’s reputation as a historian in the early 1900s. <br /><br />You grudgingly acknowledge “Gordon being derivative generally and otherwise.” Yet you seem to resent my mentioning those facts.<br /><br />I quoted the newspaper report about Gordon having an Englishman edit his manuscript because I hadn’t seen that mentioned in modern discussions of his historiography. It has a bearing on how other authors’ words might have gotten into Gordon’s book, and it suggests that he’d written other material about Boston that’s now lost. <br /><br />Since I’ve quoted Gordon on Revolutionary Boston several times on this website and elsewhere, I obviously see value in his writing. I think that loss is a damn shame. We’re probably in agreement that historians who dismissed Gordon as a mere plagiarist missed some valuable material they can’t find anywhere else. <br /><br />Unfortunately, you chose to make that point with silly accusations like “you have such an axe to grind against Gordon” and “you have not read him.” Instead of complaining that Orin Grant Libby went too far in dismissing Gordon, you keep trying to ascribe Libby’s opinion to me.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-34043693430671950152010-08-13T02:45:40.120-05:002010-08-13T02:45:40.120-05:00Poor old tory!Poor old tory!William Thomas Shermanhttp://www.gunjones.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-2853564155857821542010-08-13T02:43:32.380-05:002010-08-13T02:43:32.380-05:00Anyone who reads your original article and then my...Anyone who reads your original article and then my response can see who first was being pronouncedly sarcastic and negative -- I merely responded in Gordon&#39;s defense. <br />Moreover, you contradict yourself. If he plagiarized so grossly and ubiquitously, as you claim; and himself (including his personal contacts; such as I mentioned), had nothing new or of interest to add to the Register, then from whom did he steal his stodginess? ;)William Thomas Shermanhttp://www.gunjones.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-7325882476744814262010-08-12T12:31:12.446-05:002010-08-12T12:31:12.446-05:00I don’t have “an axe to grind against Gordon,” but...I don’t have “an axe to grind against Gordon,” but you certainly appear to have an axe to grind for him. <br /><br />The whole point of this series of postings was to explore how so many American historians stopped trusting Gordon’s history even though the record is quite clear that he was (a) on or close to the scene of the outbreak of war, and (b) friendly with several of the major players. <br /><br />I quote Gordon regularly, while recognizing his political leanings (not just for the Patriots, for example, but for Samuel Adams over John Hancock). Clicking on the <a href="http://boston1775.blogspot.com/search/label/William%20Gordon" rel="nofollow">William Gordon link</a> would have shown you that. <br /><br />There was no need to embarrass yourself by casting aspersions.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-81699240021063980272010-08-12T09:22:39.659-05:002010-08-12T09:22:39.659-05:00You write: &quot;Without Gordon’s original manuscr...You write: &quot;Without Gordon’s original manuscript, it’s impossible to know whether he had copied that material himself or his British editor did. But he certainly signed off on the final text and hoped to make money off it. And the result of its twisted journey to print is that most modern historians consult Gordon’s book for sporadic passages about Revolutionary politics and war in <br />Massachusetts, where he had first-hand knowledge, and ignore the rest as derivative.&quot;<br /><br />Perhaps you might explain to all why you have such an axe to grind against Gordon. Evidently, you have not read him or read him much yourself, for had you done so you would realize there are is historical material in Gordon which first came to the printed page through him; particulalry information pertaining to the American army and war effort. For example Gordon had available to him the testimonies of several American officers of military events not had or known to the Register or the Remembrancer, such as the papers of Otho Williams.<br /><br />As for Gordon being derivative generally and otherwise, this is in large measure true, but in fairness he was more interested in geting history and the record straight, and jusifying the American cause, then being overly preoccupied with procuring literary laurels for himself. Certainly one could wish there was more polish and original nuance to his manner of writing and presentation, yet given the newness (Gibbon, by contrast and for instance, had centuries to help prepare his famous work) and wide scope of his task, he perfomed his job admirably in many if not all respects.William Thomas Shermanhttp://www.gunjones.comnoreply@blogger.com